Slashdot Mirror
Petition To Get OS/2 Open Source
Landreth writes "There is currently an ongoing petition taking place at OS2 World to get IBM to open source either the whole part or parts of OS/2 to the community. I would highly encourage the Linux community to take part of this open source petition as well due to the fact there are lots of interesting code base the they could benefit from. To sign the petition: http://www.os2world.com/petition/" Despite the jokes about it, there was some good stuff in OS/2; however, I'd rank the ability to open it up fairly low, since I suspect there's a fair amount of legal restrictions on elements of the code.
I've got to say - even if 40% of OS2 is opened up, the benefits to many, many projects could be wide-spread. Further, history shows that IBM is likely to use a GNU compatible license if they open the source at all.
They obviously need more names. Posting it here though will make a nightmare for those who need to clean up the petition.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
... you know IBM is going to have ten more lawsuits on their hands as various software copyright holders magically find bits of "their code" in the OS/2 source.
It taint gonna happen.
Lets not forget that OS/2 was jointly developed by IBM and Microsoft and no doubt Microsoft still has significant rights to large portions of the code base. I find it very unlikely that they would let IBM release the code even if IBM wanted to.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I used in the early ninties, for it's day it was very nice. I think a Opensourced OS/2 would be a good alternative to Linux/BSD, for some folks who want a more gui driven system.... It never hurts to have options.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
IBM would probably have radical difficulties renegotiating a deal to open source code that originated in Redmond.
I fear this one is a nonstarter for legal reasons.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
IIRC, OS/2 (at least Warp) shipped with a complete install of MS-Win to provide dual-OS support. The OS/2 code contained lots of integration points--if these integration points relied on Win code provided as part of the infamous "divorce decree", that would presumably be off-limits without MS's blessing. If so, would there be enough "untainted" OS/2 code left to be useful as open source?
I didn't use later versions of OS/2, so I don't know if this chimera-like architecture was changed further on...
I honestly think that OS/2 would have made a much greater impact if it hadn't had such pathetic PR support. The OS itself was a surprsingly strong and reliable system, but their ad campaigns were mind-bogglingly pathetic.
I'm not sure what the Linux community could gain by it being open source, except maybe some more efficient/reliable algorythms. As such, it would be enough for the IBM written chunks to be open sourced - they don't need a complete, functional code base.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
OS/2 has a Windows (3.1) compatability layer which uses a lot of DLL code given to them under agreement back in the early 90's. There's your roadblock. (or your target...)
Just drop acid, already, and invent something better... or quit your whining.
Why, you may ask?
There are still a number of financial institutions around the world that run on various versions of OS/2, both at the server and workstation level.
Also, as of about 5 years ago, CLI OS/2 powered approximately 85% of North America's Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), with a significant share worldwide as well.
I'm sure most of the companies still behind OS/2 are screaming at IBM not to release so much as a comment from the code.
"I don't get it." -- ObviousGuy
That even *some* of the code -- specifically the workplace shell -- can't be released as open source. The workplace shell was one of the most elegant and powerful user interfaces I've ever worked with. It wasn't always the most *attractive* interface -- not by default, at any rate -- but it was the only one I've ever used that ever "felt right" to me. I miss that. The phrase "drag and drop" simply didn't do it justice.
Anyway, I signed, but I'm afraid that 1) there's too much proprietary licensed code for the entire thing to be released, and 2) IBM has neither the patience nor the interest in doing the work necessary to separate what can be released from what can't be released. Which is a pity.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Maybe I'm way out in left field, but wouldn't open sourcing OS/2 open what would likely be a lot of Microsoft's NT code? Weren't OS/2 and NT once the same operating system? I wouldn't be surprised if there were still a bit of shared codebase.
:: OS/2 API.
Not quite.
OS/2 3.0 NT was supposed to be built from NT's codebase. Obviously, that didn't happen, and microsoft took their toys and went home and made Windows 3.1 NT.
There is significant evidence that NT 3.1 (and later) Windows 32-bit APIs were influenced by OS/2 's design. The WinScrollWindow api under OS/2 has exactly the same signature as ScrollWindowEx under Win32... The win16 api does not quite match. There are a large number of these close matches in the Win32 API
That being said, NT (and its derivatives) do not share code with OS/2 in implementation. (other than code that was inherited from OS/2 1.3 (ie: HPFS).
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Given that OS/2 is in a good many cash machines/ATMs, I wouldn't be surprised if there are contractural problems with opening the code up. Security through obscurity and all that.
Anonymous IBMer here. Just wanted to let everyone know that you should forget about getting ALL of OS/2 and instead keep on asking for the Workplace Shell.
Usability wise, OS/2 is a nightmare, but the underlying technology is still unmatched by any OS out there, including the much vaunted OS X.
There is no way this is going to happen. IBM would have nothing to gain, because they'd have to hire a whole of people to go through the code, figure out what's not protected by any IP (and OS/2 has a 20-year history, so that's a lot of possibile IP), and then release it in such a way as to make sure no one notices, since the last thing IBM wants these days is to bring attention to OS/2.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I agree; SOM (the System Object Model) and the WPS are really the only pieces that would hold any interest. The OS/2 kernel was an advancement over DOS, but IBM never took it further than that (and it was still designed as a single-user PC OS, albeit with hooks for external security apps).
That having been said, I think that regardless of the legal entanglements, open-sourcing any part of their fat client OS would be in direct opposition to their "eCommerce Platform" strategy (i.e., run everything as thin clients off of Websphere), and so I agree with Hemos' prediction that this is not going to be more than a "wouldn't it be nice" for the foreseeable future.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Writing a letter or calling IBM would be worth like 1,000 to 10,000 signatures because it tells people that you really want this, and you aren't just filling out the form many hundreds of times. If you really want to see it happen call IBM: 1-800-IBM-4YOU
This signature was left intentionally blank.
And here's why.
IBM sold OS/2 off and it became eComStation ("jointly developed" - whatever). I highly doubt big blue has exclusive rights to the code anymore.
Go ahead and sign the petition, we all know how much weight internet petitions carry.
I, for one, would love to see both of these pan out. Unfortunately they probably won't.
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
If they had hammered a deal to do this with MS back at the time of Warp 4, back when Stardock was still supporting OS/2, it might have gone somewhere and given us essentially three competing systems: Win, Linux, OS/2. Instead, IBM could not find their rear ends with a hunting dog and a copy of Gray's Anatomy, kept with the single worst GUI design this side of the Amiga, and decided obfuscation and counterintuitiveness was superior to ease of use and common sense.
That said, it would be nice to see, but way late. We should be at Warp 7 by now. I doubt the OS/2 fanatics will be able to sufficiently play catch-up even if Redmond is open to open sourcing the thing given how many went to Windows or Linux or both. They ain't getting younger and doing an about face in your coding mindset like that might cause a bump in the number of programmers seeking professional psychiatric help.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Ok i was close on the name but not exact...
http://www.ecomstation.com/
---- Booth was a patriot ----
OpenVMS is not open source. It's simply what DEC called VMS in its later years, to signify an open-system, not an open source base. In other words, it supported open standards such as POSIX and Unix compatability, as well as TCP/IP networking, instead of the proprietary systems it used to support.
There is a project by the name of FreeVMS, but it's not anywhere close to being done, and it's pretty much stagnant now.
-twb
Well, according to their web page, the ReactOS people actually plan an OS/2 subsystem. Therefore if IBM released the part of the OS/2 code which they can, it would probably be a big help.
BTW, if the OS/2 kernel code is too encumbered, even releasing the WPS alone could be a great thing. While it certainly lacked some features which modern desktops have, it had some other features which AFAIK are still not available on other systems (e.g. what was called "Arbeitsordner" in the German version; essentially a folder which managed its own "sub-session").
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Having developed device drivers for OS/2, I doubt there'd be that much interest in the OS/2 kernel or device drivers. Even in Warp, and OS/2 4.0, most of the device drivers were 16 bit since the device driver API was only 16 bit (except graphics drivers). I think maybe the only interesting parts would be the Workplace shell and SOM, though I wonder about the stability in today's complex environment, having remembered having issues of stability with the WPS when I loaded up all the software I ran.
There's also still a lot of Microsoft bits and pieces of code in there.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
What's OS/2? Like, half an operating system or something? :P
Careful with that joke, it's an antique.
Here come da fudge!
OS/2 always got hammered because it needed 16MB to be comfortable and those days a server usually had 8MB. I had 8 and I was running a BBS on my PC. It was significantly smoother, never dropped a single package over the modem while I was working on my CAD software (which alone used over 8MB of RAM), constantly swapping in and out. Win3.1 even couldn't handle me moving the mouse with a user downloading. Win95 wasn't an improvement.
Most of the Win95 and OS/2 users were single-task users. It really showed its power when you used it as a server or a real multi-task environment. Later on I ran MUDs and httpd daemons on it and it always performed faster than anything Microsoft could supply. The lack of graphics card driver support really doesn't matter if you are content with a VGA screen, who needs graphics on servers in any case?
Where it failed is the developers. Steve Balmer wasn't shouting "Developers! Developers! Developers!" for no reason. IBM's expensive compilers and other suppliers' (i.e., Borland) lack of commitment effectively what killed OS/2. There was a limit on what you really wanted to do with gcc.